[Bug 655866] Review Request: xqc - C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655866

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-01-11 04:25:49 EST ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+/- rpmlint is almost silent

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/xqc-1.0-0.1.20101120svn.fc15.*
xqc.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/xqc.h

^^^ this seems to be ok. This package contains only this file. Although I
prefer that such packages should be named ad *-devel I have no strong opinion
here.

xqc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xqc.tar.gz

^^^ that's ok for development snapshots.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I have only two cosmetic
suggestions:

* You may use svn export instead of svn co (you don't need to explicitly remove
.svn case of using export)
* Explicitly mentioning svn version in %version field sounds like a good idea.

These notes won't block the approval - feel free to ignore them.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.

+/- The package contains only one header file. Generally, we're placing such
files into *-devel packages but IMO this is not the same case - *-devel
packages are supplementary ones to the other rpms, which could be used
standalone. So I don't think we need to create virtual provides or rename
package here - this package is specifically designed to contain only header
files.

0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, here is a summary:

* Please, consider my cosmetic notes above. 
* Regardless of the result of your consideration (these notes are just cosmetic
ones), this package is


APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.